1. Title, director and release year?
Title: Homo Toxicus
Director: Carole Poliquin
Release Year: 2007
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of this film is that the human race is slowly poisoning itself to a point where we may have life affecting side effects from the constant toxic stress on the human physiology of our bodies.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The film is in the style of what I would like to call an adventure documentary. The director, Carole Poliquin, goes out on a quest to find out more about the numerous toxins that are in her body. The audience followers her on the adventure and learns facts as she does. This gives the film a sense of discovery as well as an emotional attachment to the director.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?
Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
This film incorporates all aspects of our society. She examines the corporations and their involvement within the political system, the economic advantages of using questionable chemical compounds, how the media is carefully crafted to hide the true nature of their products.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The part of the film I found most compelling were the visitations to the Inuit and Native American societies. The Inuit people live well outside of the bounds of modern industry and toxicity, yet they still suffer immensely. The fish heavy diet, tainted with mercury, has caused many birth defects and hearing impairments in the children. The school systems need to have special programs for the children since such a large percentage are affected. Back on more familiar soil, the Native Americans are being plagued by miscarriages and gender inequality during birth. This film hints at and gives evidence to the nearby chemical industry having a direct effect on the people. There is visible evidence that toxic chemicals are causing an effect, yet this is the first time I had really heard of it with accompanying evidence.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I know this is going to sound nit-picky, but the change in language really threw me off. The narrator and director were not the same person. I assumed that the director, while she spoke French during most interviews, has gone back and re-dubbed the dialogue so that the movie would be available to English speakers. I was wrong. The voice I had heard for so long, the voice I had followed on this documentary, the voice I had grown attached to, was a fake. I would have much rather had the movie be subtitled or to never hear the director actually speak English. The rough transition caused my immersion to be dissolved.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film addressed all people. It had enough information to be powerful, enough imagery and people to have emotion, and enough comedy to keep things light. The toxic buffet was a great touch.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I would have liked to have seen more hard human data. Why not take the blood of the Inuits, Native Americans, and Canadians. I would have liked to see comparisons and an attempt to link the toxic substances found in the blood with a source. Do we all share a common toxicity? I would have loved to know this answer since the most toxic substance of all is breastmilk. Has the human race gotten to a point where we not only share genes, but some common chemicals?
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The main points that the movie tried to send to its viewers was to become more active politically as to stop the use of untested chemicals and to attempt to eat healthier. However, the director herself, a vegetarian, had increased amount of toxins in her blood due to pesticides, so be sure to eat healthy and natural foods. These can be hard to find for most people, but is a reasonable solution.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
This film caused me to seek out more information of pesticides, mostly DEET due to the controversy and use, and also more information about the effect of mercury poisoning on humans, how it is built up in the ecosystems, and passed on.
DEET: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/consultations/deet/health-effects.html
Mercury: http://water.usgs.gov/wid/FS_216-95/FS_216-95.html
Title: Homo Toxicus
Director: Carole Poliquin
Release Year: 2007
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of this film is that the human race is slowly poisoning itself to a point where we may have life affecting side effects from the constant toxic stress on the human physiology of our bodies.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The film is in the style of what I would like to call an adventure documentary. The director, Carole Poliquin, goes out on a quest to find out more about the numerous toxins that are in her body. The audience followers her on the adventure and learns facts as she does. This gives the film a sense of discovery as well as an emotional attachment to the director.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?
Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
This film incorporates all aspects of our society. She examines the corporations and their involvement within the political system, the economic advantages of using questionable chemical compounds, how the media is carefully crafted to hide the true nature of their products.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The part of the film I found most compelling were the visitations to the Inuit and Native American societies. The Inuit people live well outside of the bounds of modern industry and toxicity, yet they still suffer immensely. The fish heavy diet, tainted with mercury, has caused many birth defects and hearing impairments in the children. The school systems need to have special programs for the children since such a large percentage are affected. Back on more familiar soil, the Native Americans are being plagued by miscarriages and gender inequality during birth. This film hints at and gives evidence to the nearby chemical industry having a direct effect on the people. There is visible evidence that toxic chemicals are causing an effect, yet this is the first time I had really heard of it with accompanying evidence.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I know this is going to sound nit-picky, but the change in language really threw me off. The narrator and director were not the same person. I assumed that the director, while she spoke French during most interviews, has gone back and re-dubbed the dialogue so that the movie would be available to English speakers. I was wrong. The voice I had heard for so long, the voice I had followed on this documentary, the voice I had grown attached to, was a fake. I would have much rather had the movie be subtitled or to never hear the director actually speak English. The rough transition caused my immersion to be dissolved.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film addressed all people. It had enough information to be powerful, enough imagery and people to have emotion, and enough comedy to keep things light. The toxic buffet was a great touch.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I would have liked to have seen more hard human data. Why not take the blood of the Inuits, Native Americans, and Canadians. I would have liked to see comparisons and an attempt to link the toxic substances found in the blood with a source. Do we all share a common toxicity? I would have loved to know this answer since the most toxic substance of all is breastmilk. Has the human race gotten to a point where we not only share genes, but some common chemicals?
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The main points that the movie tried to send to its viewers was to become more active politically as to stop the use of untested chemicals and to attempt to eat healthier. However, the director herself, a vegetarian, had increased amount of toxins in her blood due to pesticides, so be sure to eat healthy and natural foods. These can be hard to find for most people, but is a reasonable solution.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
This film caused me to seek out more information of pesticides, mostly DEET due to the controversy and use, and also more information about the effect of mercury poisoning on humans, how it is built up in the ecosystems, and passed on.
DEET: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/consultations/deet/health-effects.html
Mercury: http://water.usgs.gov/wid/FS_216-95/FS_216-95.html